Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Small Ball vs. Josh Mcroberts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Small Ball vs. Josh Mcroberts

    I've been bored recently and decided to do some number crunching. Some people have justified small ball on the basis that it is born out of necessity, or in other words, that we are lacking in legitimate front court players, and this is why we resort to small ball.

    I guess my question would be, should it EVER be justifiable to say, play D. Jones at the PF spot? Some people are ok with this because they seem to feel Josh Mcroberts, for example, does not belong in the NBA in any way shape or form.

    Now before I go any further, I wan't to say I'm sick of all this Josh Mcrobert's hyperbole. If anyone so dares to suggest he should be getting any minutes at all, it is always met with some sort of sarcastic crap about "The legend" of Josh Mcroberts. I'm pretty sure nobody thinks Mcroberts is a future all star or anything of that nature... but I think it is a pretty relevant question to ask if he is really "so bad" that it would be justifiable to match up a gaurd against Chris Bosh? I would presume plenty of reasonable minds disagree.

    Josh got a look this season due to injuries, he got big minutes in about 4 straight games and then disapeared once again from the rotation, presumably because he wasn't getting the job done? The numbers don't really bear that out... here are his numbers in those 4 games averaged. (we went 1-3)

    24 MPG: 8 pts, 5 rebounds, 2 assists, 1 steal, 1 block, 61% FGP.

    Nothing earth shattering, but pretty good production for a backup PF. I even checked out his Plus Minus to see if he was hurting team play when he was on the floor. Here is where he ranked amongst his teammates in those games in plus/minus. Usually a 9 man rotation.

    VS. Chicago 12/29: 2nd on the team in 28 minutes.
    VS. Memphis 12/30: 3rd on team in 23 minutes.
    VS. Minnesota 01/02: 6th on team in 25 minutes
    VS. New York 01/03: 2nd on team in 19 minutes.

    Top half of the team in 3 out of 4 games. I don't try to take too much from the plus minus stat, but one thing I think this clearly shows is this. Josh being on the floor was not hurting the team. The offense was not grinding to a halt, the team defense was not totally screwed up, because if it were, the plus minus would reflect that.

    I realize its a pretty small sample space, but it was 4 straight games of pretty steady production... and with Hansbrough and Foster out, I don't see how playing gaurds out of position is a better option than playing a real big man with legit size and athleticism.

    I also did Tylers numbers for the purposes of comparison, only using games where he played AT LEAST 20 minutes. Of which there were 15 games, here are his averages in those 15 games.

    23 MPG: 12 Points, 6 rebounds, 1 assist, 1 steal, 0.3 Blocks, 36% FGP.

    Worse than Josh in Assists and Blocks, and only clearly better in one category. Points per game. Then there is is the issue of efficiency... Ill give the floor to Seth on this one. Would you rather have 12 points at 36%? or 8 points at 61%?

    Not trying to say Josh is better, just saying Tyler had a spot in the rotation, and with him hurt, why shoulden't Josh get that spot when he has shown similar (if not better) production? Why do I have to endure a lineup with Troy Murphy at center and Mike Dunleavy at power forward????

    Unclebuck will point out that the coaches see the team every day and they have a better idea who belongs on the floor than any of us. Fair enough. However, when I look at how this coach has treated Roy Hibbert, yanking him because of matchups, starting Troy over him, I begin to question this coach and his evaluation of our players.

    The constant insistence to play Troy 30-35 MPG despite his terrible defense and worst plus/minus on the team is just another example. I think I trust my own eyes, I just don't have much faith in this coach when it comes to his evaluation of who should be getting minutes. He would ultimatly prefer to put the team on the floor with the capability of jacking up the most shots, and Josh doesn't really fit into that eqaution. Defense is a non factor in the man's decision making, or so it would seem.

    I am not proposing that we give Josh 15 MPG and all our troubles will be over. Not at all. It probably wont make much difference at all in the win/loss column. However I think it is unfair to keep him glued to the bench this way when he should clearly be getting an oppurtunity with the current injury situation... and I also think it is unfair to constantly play players out of position, thus putting them in position to fail.

    What I would really like to see is an end to Obrien's gimmicky game plan, and some sort of traditional offense/defense installed where players play their actual positions and we don't jack up 30 three pointers a night. Either way, we are gonna lose a lot of games, it would be nice if we could teach good basketball along the way instead of gimmicks.
    26
    Small ball gives us our best chance to win.
    7.69%
    2
    Josh and Solomon should get minutes and we should stop playing players out of position.
    92.31%
    24
    "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

    - ilive4sports

  • #2
    Re: Small Ball vs. Josh Mcroberts

    I want some McBob!!!!
    I CANT SPELL!

    THERE ARE THOSE THAT HAVE AND THOSE THAT WILL!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Small Ball vs. Josh Mcroberts

      I would have answered both questions YES. I'd prefer to see Josh and Solo out there for development purposes, but I'm pretty convinced that if you want to win right now, Granger plays the 4. This allows Rush and D Jones to play the wing and we are simply much better defensively. I like Josh a lot...and Solo too...but neither are part of the best starting lineup. The problem is not that Josh and Solo are not in the starting lineup....it is that Murphy is.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Small Ball vs. Josh Mcroberts

        Why can McBob not get minutes @ the 5 in a S.B. lineup?
        Let Granger play w/ McBob on the 1st untit, & Murph & Doante play the second unit. If we want a big option, Hibby can be added to either.
        Last edited by PacerGuy; 02-08-2010, 07:58 PM.
        "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
        (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Small Ball vs. Josh Mcroberts

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          I would have answered both questions YES. I'd prefer to see Josh and Solo out there for development purposes, but I'm pretty convinced that if you want to win right now, Granger plays the 4. This allows Rush and D Jones to play the wing and we are simply much better defensively. I like Josh a lot...and Solo too...but neither are part of the best starting lineup. The problem is not that Josh and Solo are not in the starting lineup....it is that Murphy is.
          While playing Granger at the four is probably the best option in the short term, there is the question of how its going to effect his health in the long term. I wasn't convinced before, but after hearing him complain about the toll it takes on his legs gaurding guys 20 pounds heavier than he is, I wouldn't want to risk it, at least not for anything longer than short spurts.

          He can certainly do a servicable job playing the position, much more so than D. Jones or Dunleavy, but its still probably not the best option.

          The other big problem is that Murph and Hibbert are seemingly the best options at their respective positions, but make a terrible defensive combo. If it were up to me? I start Hibbert no matter what, he is the future, and I think Josh would be the best compliment to him in the lineup. A defensive upgrade but an offensive downgrade, which is why JOB would never dream of doing it.

          Really, Hibbert/Josh and Solo/Murphy are pretty decent compliments, pair each slow footed guy with an athletic guy, and make sure there is a shot blocker in each lineup. Thats what I would do. Josh might not be "starting material", but I think he is servicable... I'd like to see him get a chance to prove it.
          Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 02-08-2010, 08:36 PM.
          "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

          - ilive4sports

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Small Ball vs. Josh Mcroberts

            Originally posted by PacerGuy View Post
            Why can McBob not get minutes @ the 5 in a S.B. lineup?
            Let Granger play w/ McBob on the 1st untit, & Murph & Doante play the second unit. If we want a big option, Hibby can be added to either.
            Simple....cuz JO'B prefers offense over defense and would prefer to go with a PF/C rotation of Granger/Hibbert/Murphy ( with sprinkles of Dunleavy at the PF spot ) instead of Players/Lineups involving less offensively-skilled players.

            Do this on your own.......rank each of our Players from Offensively "skilled" to Offensively "challenged" and you will have JO'Bs rotation.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Small Ball vs. Josh Mcroberts

              Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
              While playing Granger at the four is probably the best option in the short term, there is the question of how its going to effect his health in the long term. I wasn't convinced before, but after hearing him complain about the toll it takes on his legs gaurding guys 20 pounds heavier than he is, I wouldn't want to risk it, at least not for anything longer than short spurts.

              He can certainly do a servicable job playing the position, much more so than D. Jones or Dunleavy, but its still probably not the best option.

              The other big problem is that Murph and Hibbert are seemingly the best options at their respective positions, but make a terrible defensive combo. If it were up to me? I start Hibbert no matter what, he is the future, and I think Josh would be the best compliment to him in the lineup. A defensive upgrade but an offensive downgrade, which is why JOB would never dream of doing it.

              Really, Hibbert/Josh and Solo/Murphy are pretty decent compliments, pair each slow footed guy with an athletic guy, and make sure there is a shot blocker in each lineup. Thats what I would do. Josh might not be "starting material", but I think he is servicable... I'd like to see him get a chance to prove it.
              I have to agree with you. I'd be perfectly fine with a healthy dose of Josh and Solo.

              Is Rush, Granger and McBob as good as Rush, Jones and Granger...? I still say no, but developing the younger bigs and preserving whatever health Granger can retain are more important than a few more wins this season.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Small Ball vs. Josh Mcroberts

                But Troy stetches the defense and we simply cannot afford to get rid of that. Forget defense, defense isn't important, and Troy gives us our best chance to win games. If he has to play 48 minutes, so be it.


                I'm done.
                "I keep wondering the same thing. Last week they had the 4th worst record in the league, had an 11.9 percent chance of winning the lottery and were in line to land a franchise type player like Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins. This week? They have a 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery, have the 8th worst record and are in line to draft Cole Aldrich or Greg Monroe. Way to go Jim O'Brien. Rest Danny Granger the rest of the season (if it isn't too late) and give Josh McRoberts lots of minutes. That ought to do it." - Chad Ford on winning meaningless games

                Way to go Jim, you may have just put our franchise back another 4+ years.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Small Ball vs. Josh Mcroberts

                  Personally, I don't mind Murphy starting given the current PF situation (sure wish we had Foster and/or Hansbrough), however JOB should really use traditional rotations.

                  My rotations would be...

                  Price/Ford
                  Rush/D. Jones
                  Granger/Dunleavy
                  Murphy/S. Jones/McRoberts
                  Hibbert/Murphy/S. Jones


                  Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Small Ball vs. Josh Mcroberts

                    It's nice to hear it from someone other than me.

                    When you are talking about a 6'6" PF or picking guys up for the league min, I say why not put the kid on the court. Then when he's already had some (not all of them) nice nights, why not keep on going. Isn't he at least as good as those other poor options?

                    No one wants Dale Davis benched so Josh can play.*






                    *not yet at least
                    s*** it chumps

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Small Ball vs. Josh Mcroberts

                      At this point I'm indifferent as to how many minutes McBob and Solo get. I'd like to see the emphasis put on developing the young players that stand a chance in being here after 2011. Murphy, Ford, and Dun are all gone while McBob and Solo stand almost no chance in developing into a long term rotational player. They can't even get meaningful minutes on a bad team. With what players we have that are healthy I'd be fine if all of Murphy's minutes get split between them but if Hans is ever healthy I'd like to see he and Hibbert get all them minutes they can take first. Of course as long as Murhpy can dress he'll get the playing time from JOB anyway.
                      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Small Ball vs. Josh Mcroberts

                        Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                        At this point I'm indifferent as to how many minutes McBob and Solo get. I'd like to see the emphasis put on developing the young players that stand a chance in being here after 2011. Murphy, Ford, and Dun are all gone while McBob and Solo stand almost no chance in developing into a long term rotational player. They can't even get meaningful minutes on a bad team. With what players we have that are healthy I'd be fine if all of Murphy's minutes get split between them but if Hans is ever healthy I'd like to see he and Hibbert get all them minutes they can take first. Of course as long as Murhpy can dress he'll get the playing time from JOB anyway.
                        I just don't read much into who our coach gives minutes to, most coaches don't match up 6-6 guards on Chris Bosh, in fact, I can't think of another coach in the NBA that would do that, EVER.

                        Meanwhile, Chris Anderson, a player very similar to Josh, is in the rotation of a team that won 54 games last year. I think Josh could be a rotation player in the NBA, I don't know if it will be here, but I would at least appreciate a look. I also don't think Chris Anderson would so much as sniff the floor on a team coached by Jim Obrien.
                        Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 02-09-2010, 01:00 AM.
                        "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                        - ilive4sports

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Small Ball vs. Josh Mcroberts

                          Im not agreeing that they SHOULD get mins but I definitely agree we should play our players in their natural position.
                          I'm not perfect and neither are you.

                          Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
                          Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X